Jump to content
MELE-MEL

Worst thing you've ever seen done in a round

Recommended Posts

Judging a UDL tourney JV Quarterfinals: "Definitions from sources other than the OED aren't allowed by the rules of debate." 

 

Apparently their last prelim round judge actually told them something like that.  Whom they cited in round.  In Varsity this would (hopefully) get dealt with by some warranted analyticals.  In JV, it was mostly bizarre argument from authority vs. opponent's "what?" response.  Kind of hilarious, but also painfully disruptive of the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JV round, Aff (two black kids) runs Marijuana with racism/incarceration impacts. Neg (maverick Hispanic girl with no on case evidence) is reduced to awkwardly making "Um...racism isn't so bad it'll lead to genocide...we have a black president..." analyticals and then realizing that it sounds terrible.

 

And then I end up voting Neg because she got confused, read her "Obama PC low" cards on solvency, argued that Obama doesn't have the political capital to pass the plan, and Aff never responded or said the word "fiat."

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JV round, Aff (two black kids) runs Marijuana with racism/incarceration impacts. Neg (maverick Hispanic girl with no on case evidence) is reduced to awkwardly making "Um...racism isn't so bad it'll lead to genocide...we have a black president..." analyticals and then realizing that it sounds terrible.

 

And then I end up voting Neg because she got confused, read her "Obama PC low" cards on solvency, argued that Obama doesn't have the political capital to pass the plan, and Aff never responded or said the word "fiat."

Why was our JV running our aff? How'd that go, I suppose not well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was our JV running our aff? How'd that go, I suppose not well?

Not your JV - Westinghouse saw the preview and thought it looked cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had many horrific erm, experience-giving practice debates at camp last summer. My personal 3 favorites:

 

3. Arguing THEIR terrorism turn for all of cross x.

 

2. Arguing that they dropped the T I ran against their counterplan. Yeah. THAT happened.

 

1. *Standing up to give my 2AR (I was a 2A at that time)*

 

*Ahem* Okay so group their Russian oil disad, the T, Neolib, and the politics disad. Now, fiat relations with Fidel Castro into existence. This solves for everything. *sits back dow; partner gives me a thumbs-up*

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JV round, Aff (two black kids) runs Marijuana with racism/incarceration impacts. Neg (maverick Hispanic girl with no on case evidence) is reduced to awkwardly making "Um...racism isn't so bad it'll lead to genocide...we have a black president..." analyticals and then realizing that it sounds terrible.

 

And then I end up voting Neg because she got confused, read her "Obama PC low" cards on solvency, argued that Obama doesn't have the political capital to pass the plan, and Aff never responded or said the word "fiat."

Doesn't that link to holocaust triv in some way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't that link to holocaust triv in some way?

Why yes, yes it does! But I haven't seen any CDL teams pull that trick out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can top most of these. I gave the 1AC, then sat down. The 1NC order was Iran Politics, Brazil CP, and Case. We had a pretty solid debate, but they dropped everything except Iran Sanctions. Even then, they basically conceded that warming outweighs, so we were winning solidly. (Keep in mind there were 2 judges because it was a TOC qualifier). The judge that does policy in college basically said that "you outweigh, they conceded that, eZ decision, I vote affirmative." The other judge (an elderly LD judge) gets up and says "I vote on the Kritik of Neoliberalism" and sits back down. The word "neoliberalism" was never mentioned, and neither was "kritik". The other judge (college debater) looked as if he was going to punch the other judge. The sad part is, this 1 ballot kept us from breaking. 

Is it bad that I got angry just from reading that? Holy shit. And a bid round too....

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently at the Berkeley tournament, I was talking to my novices who were entered in JV. They told me about how cross-ex went down. Apparently, their first question to the aff was "Did you flow?" 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the finals round of my last tournament, I hit a surprisingly bad team and the round ended up being pretty interesting:

 

They read a cuban ethanol aff with an econ collapse -> nuke war impact, and framework cards about how detrimental nuke war is. 1NC is T, Death Cult, Kato K, XO, Ptx and Case D/Turns. We go for Kato, Death Cult, Ptx and Case in the block, The 1AR on the death cult flow says "ya know what, we'll conceed death debating is bad and we won't go for any impacts on the case don't let them go for any of there death impacts" at the top of the 2NR I'm like "Thanks for the win guys" and go for like 2 mins of severance and death cult. The 2AR stands up for about a minute and thanks all the judges for staying late at the tournament and just conceedes they loose. I was dissapointed and felt bad for them only because almost the exact same thing happened in a prelim round  against this school.

Edited by glg1995
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the finals round of my last tournament, I hit a surprisingly bad team and the round ended up being pretty interesting:

 

They read a cuban ethanol aff with an econ collapse -> nuke war impact, and framework cards about how detrimental nuke war is. 1NC is T, Death Cult, Kato K, XO, Ptx and Case D/Turns. We go for Kato, Death Cult, Ptx and Case in the block, The 1AR on the death cult flow says "ya know what, we'll conceed death debating is bad and we won't go for any impacts on the case don't let them go for any of there death impacts" at the top of the 2NR I'm like "Thanks for the win guys" and go for like 2 mins of severance and death cult. The 2AR stands up for about a minute and thanks all the judges for staying late at the tournament and just conceedes they loose. I was dissapointed and felt bad for them only because almost the exact same thing happened in a prelim round  against this school.

 

Their semi round was pretty messy, and the negative lost purely on terrible impact analysis in the 2NR.  As in no impact analysis, and they hopped around from flow to flow without giving any focus.  I was ready to vote negative going into the 2NR, the 2NR changed my mind, and I waited to hear the affirmative, whose 2AR was actually pretty decent.  (There were substantial affirmative and negative mistakes made before the 2NR, but the 2AR actually managed to weigh impacts in a way that wasn't totally disconnected from the round, and the 2NR totally failed to sell any particular story.  So I felt bad, but I joined one other judge in voting through the team you hit.  I don't think either team would have been particularly challenging for you.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

girls at our district tournament said rape is inevitable

we still lost because the judges are morons

Depending on the context, this seems like it could be reasonable. Need more information to sympathize with you.

  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on the context, this seems like it could be reasonable. Need more information to sympathize with you.

 

their card was powertagged and it was like... ethical conflict leads to rape... and ethical conflict is inevitable or something.. but then the unhighlighted parts had impacts for rape lmao

 

and we were reading maquiladoras and one of the cards said "in many cases women bodies are violated by others; they are often raped and beaten while at work."

 

the belief that rape is inevitable is just.. ethically wrong. that a woman will be dehumanized and used at one point in her life should be something we should work to solve, not just accept as "inevitable"

Edited by georgebushsdogpaintings
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

their card was powertagged and it was like... ethical conflict leads to rape... and ethical conflict is inevitable or something.. but then the unhighlighted parts had impacts for rape lmao

 

and we were reading maquiladoras and one of the cards said "in many cases women bodies are violated by others; they are often raped and beaten while at work."

 

the belief that rape is inevitable is just.. ethically wrong. that a woman will be dehumanized and used at one point in her life should be something we should work to solve, not just accept as "inevitable"

I'll sympathize with you on the powertagging. The idea that rape should be accepted because it is "inevitable" is ethically wrong. The belief that rape cannot be absolutely eliminated from society, on the other hand (though all good people should do their utmost to prevent it) is not wrong; it's simply an acknowledgment that human nature cannot be perfected. And while this goes off topic, the idea that the dehumanizing horror of rape demands other forms of dehumanization to stop it is itself morally suspect.

 

Added: And to the neg-reppers--I find it amusing that a debate world so obsessed with critical theory, refuses to answer any criticism of its deeply held beliefs. You say that anything can be questioned, but that's plainly not true.

Edited by Edgehopper
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added: And to the neg-reppers--I find it amusing that a debate world so obsessed with critical theory, refuses to answer any criticism of its deeply held beliefs. You say that anything can be questioned, but that's plainly not true.

I neg repped you.

 

I did not neg rep you to prevent your question (largely because you didn't ask one). I did so as recognition that some questions have a cost to ask, which is exacerbated by questions that are frivolous or asked from ignorance. 

 

I cannot think of a single reason why rape would be inevitable. Two centuries ago, people would have said cannibalism is inevitable because it happens everywhere. Now, it's all but gone - and an abberation. The claim that rape is inevitable reinforces and naturalizes it's presence - that claim isn't neutral, but has a cost.

 

This argument isn't particularly novel, either. A cursory engagement with the literature discussing rape and gendered violence would demonstrate the academic consensus that social practice sustains these things, not some nebulous everpresent force. If you'd like to speak about rape's inevitability, think (or read) first, rather than speaking from ignorance.  

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I neg repped you.

 

I did not neg rep you to prevent your question (largely because you didn't ask one). I did so as recognition that some questions have a cost to ask, which is exacerbated by questions that are frivolous or asked from ignorance. 

 

I cannot think of a single reason why rape would be inevitable. Two centuries ago, people would have said cannibalism is inevitable because it happens everywhere. Now, it's all but gone - and an abberation. The claim that rape is inevitable reinforces and naturalizes it's presence - that claim isn't neutral, but has a cost.

 

This argument isn't particularly novel, either. A cursory engagement with the literature discussing rape and gendered violence would demonstrate the academic consensus that social practice sustains these things, not some nebulous everpresent force. If you'd like to speak about rape's inevitability, think (or read) first, rather than speaking from ignorance.

 

Nine decades ago, people would have said that war would never happen again. To quote Thomas Sowell:

 

Those who rely on stronger military forces, rather than disarmament or international agreements, to deter war have often been depicted by intellectuals as being in favor of war. Bertrand Russell, for example, said:

 

'If you address an audience of unselected men on the prevention of war, you are sure to come up against the middle-aged man who says, with a sneer, 'Wars will never stop; it would be contrary to human nature.' It is quite obvious that the man who says this delights in war, and would hate a world from which it would be eliminated.'

 

Nor was Bertrand Russell the only internationally known philosopher to make this kind of argument, as he did in 1936, against those who wanted Britain to rearm in the face of Hitler's massive buildup of military forces that would be unleashed just three years later to begin the Second World War. Earlier, back in the 1920s, when many intellectuals were in favor of international agreements renouncing war, such as the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, those who opposed this approach were depicted by John Dewey as people "who believed in the war system."

Academic theorists have been positing ways to alter human nature to eliminate murder, violence, and any other anti-social behavior. They generally call for the abolition of freedom in the process (e.g., Skinner), but what does that matter?

 

Marx and his successors thought poverty and inequality could be abolished forever. The results of their experiments are certainly inspiring, in a sense.

 

Your analogy is flawed; cannibalism is (1) mostly nonexistent because there is so little food scarcity to justify it, and (2) still pops up as the occasional criminal fetish or manifestation of insanity. It was already practically nonexistent 200 years ago. There was a fairly recent story in Germany of a cannibal fetishist who put a Craigslist ad out saying he wanted to eat someone, and someone else actually agreed to do it. But we have some proof that it can be eradicated.

 

Absent some actual evidence through experiment or culture that an evil can be absolutely eradicated, academic consensus is not sufficient to prove that it can, whether that evil is rape, cannibalism, murder, genocide, slavery, or war. The history of mankind does not provide grounds for optimism that human nature can be changed. We can, however, bring down the sledgehammer of government on those who break the law, promote ethical beliefs attacking these evils, and do our best to prevent evil.

 

Meanwhile, relying on academic consensus has real harms. It distracts--as in the WW2 example above--from effective, practical steps that one can take to rein in evil. All the Take Back the Night rallies and Slutwalks in the world can't compare to the effectiveness of hard punishments for convicted rapists. All the educational campaigns in the world won't stop a rapist who refuses to be educated--but a gun in the hands of a potential victim might.

 

So hop down off your high horse, read a bit outside the academy, and take a look at how your beliefs work off campus where evil men can't be defeated with deft rhetoric or a well-placed sneer.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ironic that your post proves the transience of socially sustained phenomena; the presence/absence of war, the presence/absence of marxism, the presence/absence of relative poverty. 

 

It's also ironic because it spouts bald, unsupported assertions as natural facts ("All the Take Back the Night rallies and Slutwalks in the world can't compare to the effectiveness of hard punishments for convicted rapists"). Not only is that sociologically untrue (and pretty uncontroversially so), the arrogance of its assertion is doubly foolish. While "Edgehopper" may think changing social and cultural norms is ineffective, the World Health Organization would disagree. 

 

I reiterate my suggestion to read before speaking. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ironic that your post proves the transience of socially sustained phenomena; the presence/absence of war, the presence/absence of marxism, the presence/absence of relative poverty. 

 

It's also ironic because it spouts bald, unsupported assertions as natural facts ("All the Take Back the Night rallies and Slutwalks in the world can't compare to the effectiveness of hard punishments for convicted rapists"). Not only is that sociologically untrue (and pretty uncontroversially so), the arrogance of its assertion is doubly foolish. While "Edgehopper" may think changing social and cultural norms is ineffective, the World Health Organization would disagree. [/size]

 

I reiterate my suggestion to read before speaking. [/size]

People opposed to prisons argue prisons are ineffective? Shocking! Our current prison system certainly isn't very effective. But criminal justice systems that use immediate and certain punishments do--I refer you to Hawaii's HOPE program

 

And no one said changing cultural norms is ineffective. But you do need to have some idea of what cultural norms are worth promoting. In any case, the WHO report does not come to conclusions on the national effects of educational programs; it reports on very small scale experiments as promising. The main answer you get out of the WHO report is "promising approaches, more study needed." And it does not eradicate evil; it reduces it.

 

Back to the top, none of those things are transient over a longer time frame. Cycles of good and bad leadership, famine and plenty, war and peace, are as old as humanity. Marxism necessarily started with Marx, but state control of the economy didn't. We can certainly take steps to reduce inequality, promote peace, and reduce poverty, but that analysis has to begin with experimentation and data, not with the foreclosure of potential solutions and outlooks as beyond the pale.

 

You want to claim that the evil of rape can be absolutely eradicated without promoting a greater evil in turn? Show me the data, not a consensus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Rape debate, the "inevitability" argument is similar to Nietzsche arg on suffering, and ha a similar answer.  Suffering/occurrence of atrocities is a sliding scale, not a on/off.  even if rape is inevitable, i'd rather live in a world where 100 less woman are raped.  Just because racism is inevitable doesn't mean we should condone separate but equal or espouse our incredibly racist prison system.

 

@ Edgehopper Your argument about "stopping dehum with dehum is bad" doesn't quite make sense.  Obviously we shouldn't nuke a country cause it commits one atrocity, and yes a DA can outweigh, but saying we shouldn't stop rape "cuz it might lead to bad stuff or something mkay" is a fucking atrocious argument

 

Also i don't think Snarf is "refusing to get outside the academy" when he is actively debating you and providing evidence for his claims.  Though i do dislike how he neg reps all opposing arguements

 

tl;dr your Nietzschean argument is dumb and goes against the standards of science and falsifiability you claim to espouse

Edited by feldsy
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Rape debate, the "inevitability" argument is similar to Nietzsche arg on suffering, and ha a similar answer. Suffering/occurrence of atrocities is a sliding scale, not a on/off. even if rape is inevitable, i'd rather live in a world where 100 less woman are raped. Just because racism is inevitable doesn't mean we should condone separate but equal or espouse our incredibly racist prison system.

 

@ Edgehopper Your argument about "stopping dehum with dehum is bad" doesn't quite make sense. Obviously we shouldn't nuke a country cause it commits one atrocity, and yes a DA can outweigh, but saying we shouldn't stop rape "cuz it might lead to bad stuff or something mkay" is a fucking atrocious argument

 

Also i don't think Snarf is "refusing to get outside the academy" when he is actively debating you and providing evidence for his claims. Though i do dislike how he neg reps all opposing arguements

 

tl;dr your Nietzschean argument is dumb and goes against the standards of science and falsifiability you claim to espouse

You seem to be misreading my argument (since I didn't get into specifics, my original point being that "rape is inevitable" is not a transparently insane thing that should cause an instant punishment ballot). I certainly never said that rape is inevitable means we should do nothing, and repeatedly explained that we should do everything we can to stop and reduce the evil of rape. (and I'm slightly insulted that you think I would argue anything Nietzchean :) ) The exact quote from my first post with content here was "The idea that rape should be accepted because it is "inevitable" is ethically wrong. "

 

Snarf cited, er, one non-academic publication, and based his original argument on "academic consensus." Hence my lines about needing to get outside the academy.

 

Since we didn't get into specifics, my "no dehumanization to stop dehumanization" caveat is pointing out that there are some levels we shouldn't go to to stop rape. We shouldn't put all men in solitary confinement, though that would certainly prevent rape. At a more realistic level, we shouldn't abandon due process protection for defendants. Contra Amanda Marcotte's post this week, we shouldn't throw women in jail to force them to testify against men they accuse of rape.

 

In debate terms: The discourse K Snarf argues for, and that I actually link to, is flawed. The discourse K you're pointing out is not what I actually said. And the original round georgebushdogpaintings discussed appears to have been a travesty, but not simply because a debater who said "rape is inevitable" got a win.

Edited by Edgehopper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...